combining urban forestry and agroforestry

>>In a search for a forum to discuss urban forestry issues, the suggestion
>>keeps coming back that we use the "underused" alt.agroforestry
newsgroup.
>I donÕt think we are dealing with two fields. I rather think that urban
>forestry is only an aspect of agroforestry, and not a distinct field of its
>own. Plantation forestry is distinct in that only the trees are of
>immediate concern to the forester, while in agroforestry, the concern is
>not just managing the trees but also the grasses, lawn, ornamentals,
>crops, animals, etc that form part of the ecosystem in such a manner as
>to sustain productivity. Productivity could be the yield of grains, tubers,
>timber, or as in the case of urban forestry, the aesthetic appeal of the
>park.
>Does anyone disagree?
Sorry, but I do disagree. Your analysis of the relatedness of the topics is
worthwhile, but from a practical standpoint, I do not have the time to sort
through messages and discussions quite relevant to urban foresters, but
of no relevance to my work involving increased use of woody species in
1st world and 3rd world agriculture. I sympathize and empathize with
urban foresters; in fact "some of my best friends are urban foresters", but I
cannot follow both directions.
If this newsgroup became a mixed forum for urban forestry and
agroforestry, I certainly would cease monitoring it: I just don't have the
time.
To the extent that this newsgroup is "underused", I suggest we give it a
little more time to mature. I do regularly monitor alt.agroforestry, and
have found it to be worthwhile professionally.
Hey, we can wait for seedlings to grow, yes? :-)
There seem to be 10 urban foresters for every agroforester at the
moment; how does it happen they don't already have their own forum?
Philip Rutter Director/Owner/Wirewalker
Badgersett Research Farm Serenity is Possible
Woody Agriculture R&D &&&&&&&&&&
woodyag at netins.net Progress is Possible
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­